2024-08-08 Police Commission Regular Minutes

Home

Hawai'i Police Commission Regular Session Minutes Special Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 9 Vice Chair Bertsch then asked Chief Moszkowicz to explain Garrity. The chief described Garrity as a Supreme Court case allowing law enforcement agencies to compel employees to answer questions under threat of termination during administrative investigations, they don't have the right to remain silent. This is different from criminal investigations, where employees are treated the same as every other citizen. They're read their rights and if they want to make a statement they can and if they don't want to, they have a 5t" Amendment right and it can't be held against them. In administrative investigations, employees are required to answer questions, and refusal to do so can result in termination. Chair Robinson revisited the original question about providing updates on cases referred to them. Chief Moszkowicz confirmed that updates could be provided and that copies of the letters sent to complainants could also be shared with the commission, indicating whether the complaints were sustained or not. Ms. Correa mentioned the Monthly Status Report, which includes information on whether referred complaints were sustained or not. This report is provided to the commission each month. DCC Salas-Ferguson added that the report includes information such as the date received, the date occurred, OPS#, external HPD/HPC, employee, complainant, allegation, status/final disposition. It shows the status or final disposition of the investigation. Commissioner Lacerte inquired if these reports only indicate whether cases were closed or not. DCC Salas-Ferguson explained that the reports vary; they might show outcomes such as "unfounded" or "sustained," reflecting the results of the investigations. Some reports indicate whether the allegations were sustained or not. According to the Charter, the chief is required to report back on actions taken regarding cases investigated by the Police Commission. That's been interpreted in the past to provide the ultimate disposition to show if it was sustained or not. Chair Robinson stated there would have to be some consequence associated with that, correct? DCC Salas-Ferguson stated currently, they're not saying what the discipline was and he's sure that was addressed in the past and there's probably a complex analysis about whether or not to release that information. Commissioner Ing stated he wouldn't want that. DCC Salas-Ferguson stated there are times when the commission and department disagree on the interpretation of a provision, that's where declaratory rulings come into play, the circuit court would find what that actually means. It's better to just have a working understanding of what that means. The working understanding right now is that the Police Department provides whether or not it was sustained or not. Chief Moszkowicz explained that, under HRS §92F-14, certain disciplinary outcomes, such as terminations, suspensions, or counseling, are not publicly disclosed until 90 days after the completion of the highest grievance step. He would need to consult with counsel to determine if the commission's authority could override these public disclosure restrictions.